The city of Montreal has enacted a controversial new law banning the adoption and purchase of pit bulls while also requiring strict new regulations on the breed. If the requirements are not met, the dogs can be seized and euthanized.

The measure, which goes into effect Monday, comes in the wake of the death of a woman who was killed in attack in June by a dog described as a pit bull.

The breed-specific law requires that owners of American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and American pit bull terriers — as well as pit bull mixes and any dog with similar characteristics — must apply for a special permit by the end of the year in order to keep the animal, according to the Montreal Gazette.

Brown Deer Officers were dispatched to the report of two dogs attacking children in a front yard near 48th and West Dean Road in Brown Deer. Upon arrival, they observed two dogs attacking a juvenile female in the front yard of the home. To prevent further injury to the victim and other children in the area, an officer shot the primary dog with his firearm. Upon doing so, the other dog turned and attempted to attack the officer. That dog was also shot.

Both girls are 14-years-old and received serious, but non-life-threatening injuries. They were treated on scene by the North Shore Fire Department and taken to local hospitals.

Both dogs were adult PIT BULLS and lived in the home with one of the victims. MADACC responded to the scene. One dog died on scene. The other dog was turned over to MADACC and the owner requests that it be euthanized.

This incident remains under investigation. We will bring you updates as they become available.

A man and woman have been seriously injured after being attacked by their dog in an Aberdeen street. Police received calls about an out-of-control animal on Jute Street at around 11.30pm on Tuesday night.The couple, who live on the street, were taken to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and treated for bites to their hands and arms.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

(WIBW) -- Topeka Police confirmed the two pitbulls that killed 2-year-old Piper Dunbar have been euthanized.

Dogs involved in such incidents usually end up being put down, but their owner's don't always face consequences. That was the case in the most recent fatal dog attack in Northeast Kansas, prior to Piper.

2-year-old Savannah Mae Edwards was killed in 2012 after being attacked by a pit bull at her relative’s house in Topeka.

“Generally speaking, when you’re talking about dogs and what they do, the people who are going to be liable are the owners of the dog,” explained Washburn Law professor Jeffrey Jackson.

The dog was euthanized at the owner’s request, but the District Attorney’s office did not file charges against the home owner.

That wasn't the case for a similar tragedy in Geary County 15 years earlier.

11-year-old Christopher Wilson was killed after being attacked by three rottwielers while he and his little brother were waiting for the school bus in Junction City.

The dogs' owner, Sabine Davidson, was convicted of involuntary second-degree murder. Her husband pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.

“Is there evidence that would show that the owner knew or should have known that the dog has vicious tendencies? The easiest way to show that is if the dog has bitten someone before,” explained Jackson.

While the rottwielers did not fall under the “one bite” criteria, court testimony indicated Davidson had been training the rottwielers to serve as protection dogs.

“She raised the dogs to be attack dogs and did not in fact give them proper training,” said Jackson.

As far as the possibility of Piper Dunbar's father or the owner of the dogs who was staying with him being charged -- Jackson says there are too many missing facts to tell.

“Was he negligent in inviting her to stay? What did he know about the dogs? There's just a host of things that make it hard to predict,” said Jackson.

It's not just children who have fallen victim to fatal dog attacks in Northeast Kansas.

71-year-old Jimmie McConnell of Kansas City was killed by her neighbor's pitbull while she was gardening in 2006.

The dog’s owner was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison.

Alexandra Muresan said she tries to take her Yorkies for a walk at odd hours in an attempt to minimize the possibility of being attacked by other dogs.

At around 5:30 a.m. Monday, what she calls her "worst nightmare" came true. A dog bigger than her dogs came at her before she could figure out what to do.

“Right around the corner from out of nowhere,” she said. “I didn’t even have time to realize what was happening.”

As she fought to get one of her pets out of the mouth of the PIT BULL MIX, it would go after the other, she said. Finally, she let her dogs off the leash so they could escape.

Then the dog went after her.

“When I finally managed to get them out of his mouth and tried to run, he grabbed me by my back,” Muresan said.

Muresan had a photo of the red bite marks in her flesh to prove her story. Her forearm, which was also gashed, is now bandaged. Her hands have red marks and scrapes. Despite that, after the attack was over, Muresan said her first concern was for her dogs, she found waiting back at her house bloodied and injured.

“I took my dogs for emergency surgery before I checked myself into the hospital,” she said.

During her struggle with the dog, she was able to pull off its harness with tags indicating its owners live just a few doors from her.

“The owner told us the dog has not returned since yesterday,” Staton said.

Muresan, a cosmetology student, said her medical bills could run into the thousands as a result of the incident.

When they find the dog believed responsible, Staton said they will quarantine it for ten days to ensure it’s not rabid. The dog owner is responsible for those fees and civil fines of up to $150, a county spokesman said, if the dog is deemed aggressive.

A Galveston County husband and wife are suing a League City dog owner, alleging the defendant's dog bit the husband and caused injuries.

Joe Soriano and Cora Soriano filed a lawsuit Sept. 7 in Galveston County District Court against Tikeela Monique Evans-Johnson, alleging she failed to warn the plaintiffs of the dog’s vicious and dangerous propensities.

According to the complaint, on Feb. 9, 2016, Joe Soriano and Cora Soriano were walking around their neighborhood in League City when, without warning, Evans-Johnson's dog abruptly leaped onto Joe Soriano. The suit says the DOG bit and deeply punctured Soriano's left buttock, causing him physical pain, mental anguish, lost earning capacity and medical care expenses.

The plaintiffs allege Evans-Johnson failed to properly restrain her dog, failed to prevent her dog from biting Soriano and failed to assist in breaking up her dog’s attack.

The Sorianos seek trial by jury, monetary relief between $200,000 and $1 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and all other relief. They are represented by attorneys William R. Edwards III and Alison J. Logan of The Edwards Law Firm in Corpus Christi.

A woman walking her dog in a neighborhood on Peachtree City’s west side on Sept. 18 and a man coming to her aid were bitten on by TWO PIT BULLS after they attacked the woman’s small dog.

An officer arrived at the Tower Road residence off MacDuff Parkway just after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 18 in response to a dog bite report. Upon arrival, the officer said two pit bulls were standing in a yard, barking at him, according to police reports.

The resident making the complaint was contacted and told the officer she had been walking her leashed dog on the street toward Wynnmeade Parkway when a small pit bull ran out of a yard, followed by a larger dog, reports said.

The woman said the two dogs began attacking her Cairn Terrier, telling the officer that her dog was getting “tore up” so she laid on top of her dog and was subsequently bitten on the right wrist and right knee,” reports said.

The owner of the small Cairn Terrier said a Good Samaritan neighbor ran to her and began throwing the two attacking dogs off her, adding that he, too, was bitten in the process.

A second neighbor ran to the scene and began yelling at the dogs, during which time the dogs returned to their yard then ran off a few minutes later, reports said.

EMS units arrived at the scene and treated the dog bite victims. Animal control was also notified and arrived at the scene.

The owner of the pit bulls was notified and arrived at the residence. Reports said the incident is being investigated by animal control.

A man who allegedly threw a concrete block through the window of a house and then tried to turn a PIT BULL DOG loose on sheriff's deputies Monday will appear Friday in General Sessions Court.

Robert Dewayne Graham, 47, of 14111 Bailey St., is charged with four counts of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, vandalism under $500 and public intoxication.

Deputies were called to the house of a neighbor of Graham's after he allegedly threw "a large piece of block through the window of (his) house," Sgt. Toby Price said in a report.

The homeowner's 17-year-old nephew was sleeping on a couch under the window, which shattered and "showered the victim (with glass)," inflicting small cuts on his shoulder, a report said.

The piece of block "just missed the victim and landed on the floor," it added.

Deputies found Graham standing in front of his house and asked him if he had any weapons on him. He told them he had a knife and when told he was going to be patted down, responded, "You're not touching me," the report said.

Klamath County Animal Control is investigating a dog attack in the Klamath Falls suburbs that led to the death of one goat and serious injuries to another on Saturday.

Chief Animal Control Officer Jim Nielsen said his department is following up on an incident on the 2800 block of Bisbee Street during which a PIT BULL jumped the fence of a neighbor's residence and attacked their livestock.

Two goats suffered injuries to their faces, with one animal losing so much tissue it was put down by the owner. No suspects have yet been arrested or cited in the matter and the animal in question has been impounded.

Nearby residents say this was not unexpected from the dog or its owner, Frank Dodd, whom they described as a concern for the entire area. Dodd was incarcerated on a probation violation during the time of the attack and was not released until Monday.

Patricia Gomez, who's mother lives in the neighborhood, said this is not the first incident involving an aggressive dog at Dodd's property.

She said she knows of one time two pitbulls advanced on law enforcement, after which both animals were seized and put down. She said another man had to defend himself with a machete from one of Dodd's dogs when it threatened the man.

“This neighborhood is sick and tired of Frank Dodd and what goes on at Frank Dodd's house,” she said.

Despite an extensive criminal history, Dodd has yet to be charged in Klamath County with an animal-related offense.

Gina Bourque said she watched her four-month-old dog Kodi die between the jaws of the larger dog during an attack at the Ford Test Track dog park.

“The dog’s head was the size of my puppy,” said Bourque. “His jaw was locked on Kodi and I’m hitting the dog and screaming at him and he wouldn’t let go. I was afraid the dog was going to turn on me.”

Bourque said the attack happened Saturday around 11:45 a.m. She had Kodi on the side of the park for small dogs and puppies. Bourque said a woman showed up with a large BULLMASTIFF and let him loose in the puppy side of the park.

“A woman came in with a bullmastiff and she took it on the puppy side and it killed my puppy,” said Bourque. “She said ‘I always bring my dog on this side.’ I wasn’t OK with it and I went up to go get him and the dog lunged at him and got him in its jaws and started shaking him and killed him.”

Bourque said Kodi only weighed 10 pounds.

“He never had a chance.”

Bourque said she’s been to the park many times before but never saw the other woman or her dog.

“All she kept saying was ‘he won’t release when he does this, he won’t release when he does this,’” said Bourque.

When the other dog finally did let go, Bourque scooped up Kodi and rushed him to a veterinarian. She took a photo of the other dog owner’s licence before she left.

Bourque said a witness told her that as soon as she headed to the vet, the bullmastiff owner jumped in a truck and took off. Bourque called police.

Const. Andrew Drouillard said Windsor police received a call around 12:45 p.m. Saturday. They have talked to the bullmastiff owner. Drouillard said police would be handing the case over to the city’s bylaw enforcement department because it doesn’t appear there was any criminal wrongdoing.

Bylaw department officials wouldn’t comment Monday because they had yet to receive the police report.

Bourque said she only had Kodi about three months. Her last dog died of cancer. After a few years, Bourque decided it was time to get another furry companion.

“I decided instead of getting a big dog I’d get a little dog this time, for companionship, someone to love and adore and pamper,” she said. “He loved going to the park. He was the happiest dog I’ve ever seen in my life. He just loved other dogs, he loved attention and other people. He never even barked, he was so sweet.”

An MBTA bus passenger in Revere allegedly threatened Transit Police officers with a PIT BULL DOG whose aggressive behavior had led fellow riders and a driver to call for help Saturday, authorities said.

Johnny Sadm, 19, of Dorchester, allegedly asked the dog, “Do you want to eat them?” — an apparent reference to the officers summoned to Wonderland Station about 8:40 p.m. “Luckily,” department officials said on Twitter, “the dog knew better then to follow lead of owner.”

Sadm was charged with assault, trespassing, and resisting arrest. He also faces a drug possession charge after officers found him with suspected cocaine, according to police.

The officers who first arrived told Sadm that he had to get off the bus because his dog was making fellow passengers feel unsafe, according to police.

“Sadm, using course and foul language, responded by informing the officers he was not getting off the bus and the officers would have to drag him and his dog off,” police said.

Officers eventually cleared the bus, and they put the other passengers on another vehicle. Sadm also left, but police said he “felt the need to shout out insults directed at the officers creating a tumultuous environment.”

He wouldn’t leave the station, police said, and officers tried to arrest him. “However, he violently resisted and attempted to swing his pit bull at the officers,” police said. After he was in custody, Sadm’s dog was released to a female companion.

Sadm is to be arraigned Monday.

It’s up to drivers whether to allow pets on transit vehicles during off-peak hours, according to the MBTA. Those rules don’t apply to service animals, which are always allowed.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.